Canon or Nikon for filmmaking?

[runnah]

P.s a rumor I heard, which I hope is not true, is that canon is planning on dropping video capabilities in thier next round of pro dslrs to try to push people towards their "C" series.

Dropping video is not going to happen, but at the same time the only improvement you can expect is the AF system, which even then is not great. I have it on the C100 and it's not smooth unless you buy the specific (non L consumer) lenses.

Canon built themselves a reputation for video with the 5D2 because while not perfect, it was the best there was out there at the time. The only other camera that could shoot movies was the Nikon D90, but even then it was only 720p and had lots of other problems. Even Canon were surprised by how popular the 5D2 was for video, given it only did 30p and had to add other frame rates later.

Most people assume the 5D3 must be better, but Canon simply took a relatively sharp image that suffered from moiré and aliasing and blurred it (or didn't sharpen) to hide those problems. The 5D3 was better at high ISO, but that's about it. The image was not as good straight out of camera for anything but higher ISO.

The Nikon D800 was always going to be a disappointment for video based on being 36MP. That's not good for a 2MP video image because the CPU just can't scale that much info quickly enough. Therefore it has to use line skipping. However, it didn't blur the image like Canon did, so straight out of camera the D800 was sharper. I did side by side comparisons three times before selling my D800. The problem the D800 has high ISO noise. Around 2500-3200 it becomes almost unusable for video and also a magenta cast crept in from 3200 upwards. They may have fixed that in later firmware. The D800 was about on par with the 5D2. Nikon aren't serious about video, it's only there because everyone else has it. Olympus are in the same boat but 5 miles behind (still only 30p).

The Canon C series are designed to do the job and do it very well. But they are expensive. They have 4K video specific sensors though this is down scaled to1080p for both the C100 and C300 products. This results in a stunning image when sat next to a DSLR. Shooting the C100 and 5D3 side by side make the 5D3 look like you're shooting through the bottom of a bottle instead of L glass.

Both Sony and Panasonic have mirror less (DSLR like) products that beat both Canon and Nikon in terms of outright quality of image and are heavily invested in getting video features in to a small body. Micro-four-thirds glass is sharper than most full frame glass as well as being cheaper. The only thing you lose is super high ISO and equivalent shallow DOF at any given aperture / distance, but a good DOP knows how to work around that because they've been doing it in the film making industry forever.

The native Sony glass is still building, but it will get there in time. The other advantage of the Sony mount is the ability to use everyone else's glass too.

Folks, if you all want to head blindly in to the Canon system I have a very little used 5D3 for sale (UK).

I think you are being overly harsh on the 5d. For many people it's a perfect "one bag" solution. I am a team of when it comes to content production so I am to be shooting video and taking photos almost at the same time.

I've done side by sides of the 5d and the c100 and frankly didn't really notice a massive quality difference.

On the other hand I've worked with Sony cams for years and found them to be constantly flat and requiring much post work to make them look halfway decent.


Regardless, the original question sounds like they aren't working for some VP firm, nor do they have boat loads of cash.

Go with canon because you'll not only get a great video camera but you'll also get a fantastic stills camera. Skip the Panasonic.

 

[scoop2622]

Canon 5DIII Plus 1 L lens will put you over $5k.

This is just wrong! BH has kits with lenses for under 4k canon eos 5d mark iii | B&H Photo Video
and that was after one search ive seen them as low as $2700 with lens. you just gotta look around.

 

[Ballistics]

Canon 5DIII Plus 1 L lens will put you over $5k.

This is just wrong! BH has kits with lenses for under 4k canon eos 5d mark iii | B&H Photo Video
and that was after one search ive seen them as low as $2700 with lens. you just gotta look around.

Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Camera (Body Only) 5260B002 B&H Photo

+

Canon 24-70mmII 2.8L is $2000
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens 5175B002 B&H Photo Video

Explain to me how this is wrong lol.

 

[DaveEP]

Canon 5DIII Plus 1 L lens will put you over $5k.

This is just wrong! BH has kits with lenses for under 4k canon eos 5d mark iii | B&H Photo Video
and that was after one search ive seen them as low as $2700 with lens. you just gotta look around.

Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Camera (Body Only) 5260B002 B&H Photo

+

Canon 24-70mmII 2.8L is $2000
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens 5175B002 B&H Photo Video

Explain to me how this is wrong lol.

Try looking up the prices for the 70-200 f4, 200L, 35L etc, all less than $2K

 

[Ballistics]

Canon 5DIII Plus 1 L lens will put you over $5k.

This is just wrong! BH has kits with lenses for under 4k canon eos 5d mark iii | B&H Photo Video
and that was after one search ive seen them as low as $2700 with lens. you just gotta look around.

Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Camera (Body Only) 5260B002 B&H Photo

+

Canon 24-70mmII 2.8L is $2000
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens 5175B002 B&H Photo Video

Explain to me how this is wrong lol.

Try looking up the prices for the 70-200 f4, 200L, 35L etc, all less than $2K

That still doesn't disprove what I said as incorrect. You are all saying something different then I am. I didn't say ANY L Lens. I said 1 L lens.

 

[DaveEP]

Then why not go the whole hog and say that one lens is the 800L - now we're at $16K

The 5D3 + L lenses does get expensive. There are lots of alternative lenses that work perfectly well for less money, especially if you're looking to use it how the pros do in the movies - manual focus using rails and a follow focus. Check out Samyang / Rokinon etc.

Just put all my Canon gear up for sale today. Should have done that before Christmas.

 

[Ballistics]

Then why not go the whole hog and say that one lens is the 800L - now we're at $16K

The 5D3 + L lenses does get expensive. There are lots of alternative lenses that work perfectly well for less money, especially if you're looking to use it how the pros do in the movies - manual focus using rails and a follow focus. Check out Samyang / Rokinon etc.

Just put all my Canon gear up for sale today. Should have done that before Christmas.

And? My point was, and still is, that it's expensive, and if you're going to settle for a 24-105mm 4L with a 5D3... might as well spend almost 2k less and just get a dedicated prosumer camera like the XA20.

 

[DaveEP]

And? My point was, and still is, that it's expensive, and if you're going to settle for a 24-105mm 4L with a 5D3... might as well spend almost 2k less and just get a dedicated prosumer camera like the XA20.

But that's like saying buy a van instead of a car because it's cheaper and still gets you there. Does everything always come down to price?

The XA20 is a good small camcorder and has some very distinct advantages over a DSLR, such as XLR inputs, dual card recording etc. Yes I've used an XA20 as well as the XA10 and XF100 / XF300.

However, it doesn't have interchangeable lenses, you get what Canon gave you. It's not great in low light, anything above 9db has pretty horrible noise with the built in NR smearing everything much above that, while the DSLR has at least the potential for changing lenses, higher ISO etc, but lacks the XLRs and dual card recording.

They are completely different beasts. The XA20 has (relatively) great (and constant) auto focus - the DSLR sucks at it (for video).

The XA20 gives you lots of depth of field, the DSLR could give you shallow DOF. Neither one is right or wrong, it all depends on what you're trying to achieve. OTOH, while the 5D3 comes without any ND filters, the XA20 includes them but alas their use is automatic based on the IRIS you set. You can't shoot wide open with an ND manually applied, unless like the DSLR you add one in front of the lens.

BTW - you won't get me arguing that DSLRs are better than camcorders, I've used camcorders for 25+ years and love them, but for 'some' people DSLRs 'may' be the better tool - depending on what they want to shoot.

Some camcorders are going to be more expensive than the 5D3+Glass, though again you're typically limited to a built in lens.

I'm happy to debate the Camcorder vs DSLR all day long, but in the end it comes down to what you want to shoot because like everything else in life. there is no good one-tool-does-it-all solution.

 

[DaveEP]

And? My point was, and still is, that it's expensive, and if you're going to settle for a 24-105mm 4L with a 5D3... might as well spend almost 2k less and just get a dedicated prosumer camera like the XA20.

But that's like saying buy a van instead of a car because it's cheaper and still gets you there. Does everything always come down to price?

The XA20 is a good small camcorder and has some very distinct advantages over a DSLR, such as XLR inputs, dual card recording etc. Yes I've used an XA20 as well as the XA10 and XF100 / XF300.

However, it doesn't have interchangeable lenses, you get what Canon gave you. It's not great in low light, anything above 9db has pretty horrible noise with the built in NR smearing everything much above that, while the DSLR has at least the potential for changing lenses, higher ISO etc, but lacks the XLRs and dual card recording.

They are completely different beasts. The XA20 has (relatively) great (and constant) auto focus - the DSLR sucks at it (for video).

The XA20 gives you lots of depth of field, the DSLR could give you shallow DOF. Neither one is right or wrong, it all depends on what you're trying to achieve. OTOH, while the 5D3 comes without any ND filters, the XA20 includes them but alas their use is automatic based on the IRIS you set. You can't shoot wide open with an ND manually applied, unless like the DSLR you add one in front of the lens.

BTW - you won't get me arguing that DSLRs are better than camcorders, I've used camcorders for 25+ years and love them, but for 'some' people DSLRs 'may' be the better tool - depending on what they want to shoot.

Some camcorders are going to be more expensive than the 5D3+Glass, though again you're typically limited to a built in lens.

I'm happy to debate the Camcorder vs DSLR all day long, but in the end it comes down to what you want to shoot because like everything else in life. there is no good one-tool-does-it-all solution.

For every day video production a camcorder may be the better job, but for indie film making you typically (not always) want a more shallow DOF than a 1/3" chip camcorder will provide, though of course it's doable with the right amount of space (step back and zoom in) and control over the IRIS and lighting. As I recall the op was asking about gear for film making. Camcorders are perfect for documentary type work, after than I would probably want a bigger chip.

For indie film making the 24-70 may not be the right tool (for DOF reasons more than price) and you'd be better looking at the Samyang / Rokinon primes which are a lot cheaper and give you much more control. What you lose is AF, but then no serious film maker uses AF anyway.

 

[Ballistics]

And? My point was, and still is, that it's expensive, and if you're going to settle for a 24-105mm 4L with a 5D3... might as well spend almost 2k less and just get a dedicated prosumer camera like the XA20.

But that's like saying buy a van instead of a car because it's cheaper and still gets you there. Does everything always come down to price?

The XA20 is a good small camcorder and has some very distinct advantages over a DSLR, such as XLR inputs, dual card recording etc. Yes I've used an XA20 as well as the XA10 and XF100 / XF300.

However, it doesn't have interchangeable lenses, you get what Canon gave you. It's not great in low light, anything above 9db has pretty horrible noise with the built in NR smearing everything much above that, while the DSLR has at least the potential for changing lenses, higher ISO etc, but lacks the XLRs and dual card recording.

They are completely different beasts. The XA20 has (relatively) great (and constant) auto focus - the DSLR sucks at it (for video).

The XA20 gives you lots of depth of field, the DSLR could give you shallow DOF. Neither one is right or wrong, it all depends on what you're trying to achieve. OTOH, while the 5D3 comes without any ND filters, the XA20 includes them but alas their use is automatic based on the IRIS you set. You can't shoot wide open with an ND manually applied, unless like the DSLR you add one in front of the lens.

BTW - you won't get me arguing that DSLRs are better than camcorders, I've used camcorders for 25+ years and love them, but for 'some' people DSLRs 'may' be the better tool - depending on what they want to shoot.

Some camcorders are going to be more expensive than the 5D3+Glass, though again you're typically limited to a built in lens.

I'm happy to debate the Camcorder vs DSLR all day long, but in the end it comes down to what you want to shoot because like everything else in life. there is no good one-tool-does-it-all solution.

I didn't bring up price, the person I quoted did. They said their 5D3 beats any sub $5k camcorder, but the fact of the matter is, the 5D3 with a comparable lens that a camera like the XA20 comes with is OVER $5k. That's where I was going with that. I didn't say that one is better than the other.

 

[DaveEP]

I didn't bring up price, the person I quoted did. They said their 5D3 beats any sub $5k camcorder

OK - point taken. And BTW I agree with you, the 5D3 + Glass does not always beat a sub $5K camcorder. It how you use it and what you're trying to shoot. The 5D3 could be the perfect tool or it could suck badly.

 

[scoop2622]

Canon 5DIII Plus 1 L lens will put you over $5k.

This is just wrong! BH has kits with lenses for under 4k canon eos 5d mark iii | B&H Photo Video
and that was after one search ive seen them as low as $2700 with lens. you just gotta look around.

Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Camera (Body Only) 5260B002 B&H Photo

+

Canon 24-70mmII 2.8L is $2000
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens 5175B002 B&H Photo Video

Explain to me how this is wrong lol.

Try looking up the prices for the 70-200 f4, 200L, 35L etc, all less than $2K

See now were talking semantics you said a 5D with an L lens
Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Camera with 24-105mm Lens and Inkjet

 

[Ballistics]

You've been talking semantics from the beginning. You said that I was wrong. You're nitpicking. Again, I never said ANY L glass. I said AN L lens. I'm obviously not wrong, but I think my point has been explained pretty well to keep going back and forth.

 

[scoop2622]

You've been talking semantics from the beginning. You said that I was wrong. You're nitpicking. Again, I never said ANY L glass. I said AN L lens. I'm obviously not wrong, but I think my point has been explained pretty well to keep going back and forth.

all I said was here is a 5d3 w/ l lens that's far below 5k

 

[runnah]

I hardly use any L lenses for video. I stick mostly with primes and frankly the L are way too expensive and none of the standard primes have stabilization.

The 24-105 is a fantastic handheld on the fly video lens. The IS does a great job and it has pretty good optics.

Of course I shoot highly specialized subjects so your mileage may vary.